Re: UAX44: loose matching of symbolic values and the `is` prefix

From: Mathias Bynens <>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:13:09 +0300

> On 7 Jun 2016, at 17:56, Doug Ewell <> wrote:
> Rather than changing the spec based on anecdotal evidence, […]
> It seems irresponsible to assume now that nobody anywhere needs
> it.

What assumption are you talking about? Markus and Nova provided actual examples of implementations not following the spec, and so far no one has been able to provide even a single counter-example.

> There must have been some basis for including the "is" case in the first
> place.

Now *that* sounds like an assumption to me.
Received on Tue Jun 07 2016 - 14:15:02 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jun 07 2016 - 14:15:02 CDT